People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 20 April 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02965,942 N.Y.S.2d 302,94 A.D.3d 1408
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy J. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02965
94 A.D.3d 1408
942 N.Y.S.2d 302

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Timothy J. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

April 20, 2012.

[942 N.Y.S.2d 302]

Kristin F. Splain, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kimberly J. Czapranski of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[94 A.D.3d 1409] Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4) ] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant was charged as an accomplice ( see § 20.00) and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant jointly possessed his codefendant's loaded firearm ( see People v. Velasquez, 44 A.D.3d 412, 412, 843 N.Y.S.2d 253, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1040, 852 N.Y.S.2d 25, 881 N.E.2d 1212). According to the

[942 N.Y.S.2d 303]

evidence presented at trial, just prior to the shooting defendant was driving a moped on which the codefendant was a passenger. Immediately before the codefendant fired a shot or shots toward a vehicle, defendant stopped the moped. It may therefore be inferred that defendant was aware that the codefendant had a loaded firearm, and that he aided the codefendant in that possession inasmuch as he stopped the moped in order for the codefendant to be able to line up his target and fire. In addition, defendant's actions after the shooting further show that he intentionally aided the codefendant in his possession of the loaded firearm. Defendant sped away from the scene of the shooting, swerving past a police vehicle in the process. He ignored the officer's efforts to stop the moped. Indeed, he drove onto the sidewalk, cut through a parking lot, and tried to maneuver around the police vehicles when the police attempted to block him. We therefore conclude that “defendant's conduct showed that he was aware that his codefendant possessed a handgun” and that he intentionally aided the codefendant in...